| Title |
Reconsidering the duty to warn genetically at-risk relatives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetics in Medicine, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/gim.2017.257 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark A Rothstein |
| Abstract |
The duty to warn genetically at-risk relatives of patients is one of the most misunderstood legal and ethical issues affecting clinical genetics. The legal doctrines are often associated with three state appellate court cases beginning in the mid-1990s. Since the HIPAA Privacy Rule went into effect in 2003, the duty to warn must be accomplished by warning the patient of the genetic nature of a diagnosed disorder or genetic risk and the necessity of warning at-risk relatives. Health-care providers are neither required nor permitted to warn at-risk relatives without the consent of their patients. Having warnings issued by the patient most closely aligns with traditional ethical principles and the interests of the parties. Physicians and other health-care providers can assist their patients by preparing jargon-free explanations of the genetic risk and offering consultation or referral services. In the future, the need for warnings is less likely to be triggered by diagnoses and more likely to be based on predictive information derived from genome sequencing and other technologies and data sources.GENETICS in MEDICINE advance online publication, 1 February 2018; doi:10.1038/gim.2017.257. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 13% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Mexico | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Djibouti | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 41% |
| Scientists | 16 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 27 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 31 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,578,736
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#525
of 2,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,580
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#18
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.